Hi all,
Tomorrow is the fifteenth, which puts us on track for 3.0a1:
https://ytep.readthedocs.org/en/latest/YTEPs/YTEP-0008.html
Releasing an alpha of 3.0 means:
* Tagging in the repo * Sending out an email to yt-users with plenty of caveats * Providing installation instructions * Soliciting feedback
I'd like to suggest that this also includes a code dump into yt_analysis/yt at the tag point. This means putting the branch yt-3.0 into the main yt repository. This provides a few things:
1) Anyone who manually pulls can switch much more easily (this will not affect "yt update" I believe) 2) We can consolidate a little bit of the differences between the two repositories 3) Installing 3.0 from the install script just means changing the branch name in install_script.sh.
On the downside, a blind "hg update -C" could potentially switch branches. I don't think this is a big deal since this is not a common thing to do.
[+-][01] on pushing yt-3.0 branch into yt_analysis/yt?
I am neutral to killing off yt_analysis/yt-3.0 at this time and developing yt-3.0 in yt_analysis/yt, but would entertain those suggestions. (This would mean higher traffic on pull requests.)
There are still a few outstanding things before the alpha. Doug, would you like me to pull in the artio changes? And Chris, do you think you'll have time to address the outstanding pull request comments? I also intend to fix RAMSES particles tomorrow, but if that doesn't happen it's no big deal.
-Matt
+1 on yt-3.0 in yt_analysis/yt. I think this should definitely be done at some point, and now that it's getting to the point where people can use it, this may help lower that entry barrier just enough. I would say keep the yt-3.0 repo around for now so that people who are developing in forks of it can finish what they're doing, issue a PR, and then move over to a fork of the main yt repo.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Tomorrow is the fifteenth, which puts us on track for 3.0a1:
https://ytep.readthedocs.org/en/latest/YTEPs/YTEP-0008.html
Releasing an alpha of 3.0 means:
- Tagging in the repo
- Sending out an email to yt-users with plenty of caveats
- Providing installation instructions
- Soliciting feedback
I'd like to suggest that this also includes a code dump into yt_analysis/yt at the tag point. This means putting the branch yt-3.0 into the main yt repository. This provides a few things:
- Anyone who manually pulls can switch much more easily (this will
not affect "yt update" I believe) 2) We can consolidate a little bit of the differences between the two repositories 3) Installing 3.0 from the install script just means changing the branch name in install_script.sh.
On the downside, a blind "hg update -C" could potentially switch branches. I don't think this is a big deal since this is not a common thing to do.
[+-][01] on pushing yt-3.0 branch into yt_analysis/yt?
I am neutral to killing off yt_analysis/yt-3.0 at this time and developing yt-3.0 in yt_analysis/yt, but would entertain those suggestions. (This would mean higher traffic on pull requests.)
There are still a few outstanding things before the alpha. Doug, would you like me to pull in the artio changes? And Chris, do you think you'll have time to address the outstanding pull request comments? I also intend to fix RAMSES particles tomorrow, but if that doesn't happen it's no big deal.
-Matt _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
+1 on yt-3.0 in yt_analysis/yt +1 on keeping yt-3.0 fork around a bit longer
anyone doing hg update -C without knowing what they're doing will probably end up getting what's coming to them even if yt-3.0 wasn't a part of the equation.
j
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
+1 on yt-3.0 in yt_analysis/yt. I think this should definitely be done at some point, and now that it's getting to the point where people can use it, this may help lower that entry barrier just enough. I would say keep the yt-3.0 repo around for now so that people who are developing in forks of it can finish what they're doing, issue a PR, and then move over to a fork of the main yt repo.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Tomorrow is the fifteenth, which puts us on track for 3.0a1:
https://ytep.readthedocs.org/en/latest/YTEPs/YTEP-0008.html
Releasing an alpha of 3.0 means:
- Tagging in the repo
- Sending out an email to yt-users with plenty of caveats
- Providing installation instructions
- Soliciting feedback
I'd like to suggest that this also includes a code dump into yt_analysis/yt at the tag point. This means putting the branch yt-3.0 into the main yt repository. This provides a few things:
- Anyone who manually pulls can switch much more easily (this will
not affect "yt update" I believe) 2) We can consolidate a little bit of the differences between the two repositories 3) Installing 3.0 from the install script just means changing the branch name in install_script.sh.
On the downside, a blind "hg update -C" could potentially switch branches. I don't think this is a big deal since this is not a common thing to do.
[+-][01] on pushing yt-3.0 branch into yt_analysis/yt?
I am neutral to killing off yt_analysis/yt-3.0 at this time and developing yt-3.0 in yt_analysis/yt, but would entertain those suggestions. (This would mean higher traffic on pull requests.)
There are still a few outstanding things before the alpha. Doug, would you like me to pull in the artio changes? And Chris, do you think you'll have time to address the outstanding pull request comments? I also intend to fix RAMSES particles tomorrow, but if that doesn't happen it's no big deal.
-Matt _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:45 AM, "Matthew Turk" matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
[+-][01] on pushing yt-3.0 branch into yt_analysis/yt?
+0, we're not working in either right now, so it makes little difference.
There used to be a bug in bit bucket when a the parent fork of a fork was deleted, not sure if that's still a concern.
There are still a few outstanding things before the alpha. Doug, would you like me to pull in the artio changes?
The particles and grid fields are working, except for particle type support. I'd say if our front end passes all unit tests and the units are working then we should go into 3.0a1, but otherwise not.
I'll clean up a few things and open a pull request later today and we can discuss it there.
Doug
Hi all,
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Douglas Harvey Rudd drudd@uchicago.edu wrote:
On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:45 AM, "Matthew Turk" matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
[+-][01] on pushing yt-3.0 branch into yt_analysis/yt?
+0, we're not working in either right now, so it makes little difference.
Okay, I think I'll push it into yt_analysis/yt for the release. Responses have been positive or neutral so far. [insert 'chaotic neutral' joke]
There used to be a bug in bit bucket when a the parent fork of a fork was deleted, not sure if that's still a concern.
Yes, I think it's still around. We'll keep the yt_analysis/yt-3.0 repo for now. We can re-evaluate if need be at some point in the future.
There are still a few outstanding things before the alpha. Doug, would you like me to pull in the artio changes?
The particles and grid fields are working, except for particle type support. I'd say if our front end passes all unit tests and the units are working then we should go into 3.0a1, but otherwise not.
What I pulled in just now passes everything! I think as long as we keep in mind this is really a "heartbeat" for the project, it's fine to put something out that works, but doesn't have everything in yet.
I'll clean up a few things and open a pull request later today and we can discuss it there.
Great, thanks -- no rush, I am about to head to some talks and then address some other issues.
I've put a draft of the release email here:
http://titanpad.com/vUvgXWch4Q
I did select a few names to put in, even though there were more people who contributed in the yt 3.0 branch, simply because for this release I wanted to emphasize the Octree support. Please feel free to add anyone I missed.
Doug _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
I've pushed all 515 changesets from the tip of yt_analysis/yt-3.0 to yt_analysis/yt . These are still stored in the named branch "yt-3.0" so this should only impact pulling manually and updating explicitly to either tip or "yt-3.0".
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Douglas Harvey Rudd drudd@uchicago.edu wrote:
On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:45 AM, "Matthew Turk" matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
[+-][01] on pushing yt-3.0 branch into yt_analysis/yt?
+0, we're not working in either right now, so it makes little difference.
Okay, I think I'll push it into yt_analysis/yt for the release. Responses have been positive or neutral so far. [insert 'chaotic neutral' joke]
There used to be a bug in bit bucket when a the parent fork of a fork was deleted, not sure if that's still a concern.
Yes, I think it's still around. We'll keep the yt_analysis/yt-3.0 repo for now. We can re-evaluate if need be at some point in the future.
There are still a few outstanding things before the alpha. Doug, would you like me to pull in the artio changes?
The particles and grid fields are working, except for particle type support. I'd say if our front end passes all unit tests and the units are working then we should go into 3.0a1, but otherwise not.
What I pulled in just now passes everything! I think as long as we keep in mind this is really a "heartbeat" for the project, it's fine to put something out that works, but doesn't have everything in yet.
I'll clean up a few things and open a pull request later today and we can discuss it there.
Great, thanks -- no rush, I am about to head to some talks and then address some other issues.
I've put a draft of the release email here:
http://titanpad.com/vUvgXWch4Q
I did select a few names to put in, even though there were more people who contributed in the yt 3.0 branch, simply because for this release I wanted to emphasize the Octree support. Please feel free to add anyone I missed.
Doug _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-
Britton Smith -
Douglas Harvey Rudd -
j s oishi -
Matthew Turk